[Vision2020] self-govenment
Joshua Nieuwsma
joshuahendrik@yahoo.com
Wed, 14 May 2003 15:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
--0-1377216599-1052952342=:59636
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I actually was thinking of the market in Amsterdam for drugs like marijuana, despite the legality. True, the market was once prosecuted as illegal.
But once legalized, or at least tolerated by the authorities it only grew bigger, from what I've read anyhow in a quick internet search.
There are many dozens of shops all over the place in Holland now distributing marijuana. They call them "alternative" coffeeshops. Smoke mind-lifting pot with your morning coffee sort of thing.
But although the Prohibition created a storm of black market sellers, all that means is that alcohol consumption continued quite uninhibited despite the ban.
I really doubt that it went up, or down, during the prohibition as compared to the years before and after it (disregarding such effects as lack of money due to the depression in the 1930's).
Perhaps there was more private enterprise because of the Prohibition. I'm not sure, but I would guess that the small dealers of alcohol fizzled out because they couldn't compete with the real alcohol distributors, not because the demand dried up.
Perhaps in some areas there were people who drank alcohol just to spite the government, but I doubt that was the main drive.
>From what I've read, most people just liked it and were frustrated at the attempts of Uncle Sam and the Temperance Unions to tell them how to live their lives.
But who wants home distilled stuff when the quality stuff from your favorite beverage company is once again available just down the road in the local drugstore?
And at a cheaper or equivalent price?
And at least in the case of marijuana I rather doubt that legalizing it would make the potential market for distributing it shrink all that much.
Again, look at Holland for an example.
So I'm sort of questioning whether in the case of drugs the legality issue really affects the actual consumers.
They get it because they are addicted to it, because their friends use it, because it's "cool", or for a variety of other supposed rationale.
But I'm still not sure that the illegal status really plays that much of a role in the size of the drug industry.
What about the size of the opium industry before it was made illegal in the early 1900's?
It was very widespread and lots of people made lots of money from it. Especially the British. And lots more people were addicted to it, too, while it was legal.
Seems to me that the illegal status of drugs just makes them a more expensive commodity, but not necessarily a more desired commodity overall.
Also, john moss is right. Actions, rather than substances, need to be considered.
There really isn't anything inherently evil in uranium or plutonium, but how it is used is what matters.
Same for heroin, same for alcohol. Same for a gun, same for a knife. Same for anything.
Would you outlaw snakes because someone used one to kill a girl (as in The Case of the Speckled Band by Sir Arthur)?
Or do you outlaw murdering and bring justice to those who do it? (and what purer justice for murder than the death penalty?)
Obviously the latter, or else you get the modern prison: thousands of prisoners eating up our tax money for possessing a smidgen of marijuana while 3rd time murderers get away with a couple years by pleading lunacy.
There's lots of good ways to deal with crime, and our country has missed most of them. And it all comes back to personal responsibility. Upon the murderer's head be his actions.
interesting times we live in, that such common sense ideas would warrant discussion.
-joshua nieuwsma
thansen@moscow.com wrote:
Joshua Nieuwsma stated:
"There will always be a market for illegal things. There will always be people
who break the laws because they are there. But does it necessarily follow that
the market was created by the legality, or lack thereof?"
My answer to your question, Mr. Nieuwsma, is "Yes". Illegality of a substance
strengthens the (black) market for it. May I introduce into evidence the
Prohibition? Not only was the Prohibition wrong for legislating morality, but
once the Prohibition Amendment was repealed, alot of former alcohol
distributors/sellers fizzled out with it (or entered the drug trade).
Tom Hansen
Moscow,
Idaho
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
--0-1377216599-1052952342=:59636
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>
<DIV>I actually was thinking of the market in Amsterdam for drugs like marijuana, despite the legality. True, the market was once prosecuted as illegal.<BR>But once legalized, or at least tolerated by the authorities it only grew bigger, from what I've read anyhow in a quick internet search.</DIV>
<DIV>There are many dozens of shops all over the place in Holland now distributing marijuana. They call them "alternative" coffeeshops. Smoke mind-lifting pot with your morning coffee sort of thing. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But although the Prohibition created a storm of black market sellers, all that means is that alcohol consumption continued quite uninhibited despite the ban.</DIV>
<DIV>I really doubt that it went up, or down, during the prohibition as compared to the years before and after it (disregarding such effects as lack of money due to the depression in the 1930's).</DIV>
<DIV>Perhaps there was <EM>more</EM> private enterprise because of the Prohibition. I'm not sure, but I would guess that the small dealers of alcohol fizzled out because they couldn't compete with the real alcohol distributors, not because the demand dried up.</DIV>
<DIV>Perhaps in some areas there were people who drank alcohol just to spite the government, but I doubt that was the main drive. </DIV>
<DIV>From what I've read, most people just liked it and were frustrated at the attempts of Uncle Sam and the Temperance Unions to tell them how to live their lives.</DIV>
<DIV>But who wants home distilled stuff when the quality stuff from your favorite beverage company is once again available just down the road in the local drugstore?</DIV>
<DIV>And at a cheaper or equivalent price? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And at least in the case of marijuana I rather doubt that legalizing it would make the potential market for distributing it shrink all that much.</DIV>
<DIV>Again, look at Holland for an example.</DIV>
<DIV>So I'm sort of questioning whether in the case of drugs the legality issue really affects the actual consumers.</DIV>
<DIV>They get it because they are addicted to it, because their friends use it, because it's "cool", or for a variety of other supposed rationale.</DIV>
<DIV>But I'm still not sure that the illegal status really plays that much of a role in the size of the drug industry.</DIV>
<DIV>What about the size of the opium industry before it was made illegal in the early 1900's? </DIV>
<DIV>It was very widespread and lots of people made lots of money from it. Especially the British. And lots more people were addicted to it, too, while it was legal.</DIV>
<DIV>Seems to me that the illegal status of drugs just makes them a more expensive commodity, but not necessarily a more desired commodity overall.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Also, john moss is right. Actions, rather than substances, need to be considered.</DIV>
<DIV>There really isn't anything inherently evil in uranium or plutonium, but how it is used is what matters.</DIV>
<DIV>Same for heroin, same for alcohol. Same for a gun, same for a knife. Same for anything.</DIV>
<DIV>Would you outlaw snakes because someone used one to kill a girl (as in <EM>The Case of the Speckled Band </EM>by Sir Arthur)?</DIV>
<DIV>Or do you outlaw murdering and bring justice to those who do it? (and what purer justice for murder than the death penalty?)</DIV>
<DIV>Obviously the latter, or else you get the modern prison: thousands of prisoners eating up our tax money for possessing a smidgen of marijuana while 3rd time murderers get away with a couple years by pleading lunacy.</DIV>
<DIV>There's lots of good ways to deal with crime, and our country has missed most of them. And it all comes back to personal responsibility. Upon the murderer's head be his actions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>interesting times we live in, that such common sense ideas would warrant discussion. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-joshua nieuwsma</DIV>
<DIV><BR><B><I>thansen@moscow.com</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Joshua Nieuwsma stated:<BR><BR>"There will always be a market for illegal things. There will always be people <BR>who break the laws because they are there. But does it necessarily follow that <BR>the market was created by the legality, or lack thereof?"<BR><BR>My answer to your question, Mr. Nieuwsma, is "Yes". Illegality of a substance <BR>strengthens the (black) market for it. May I introduce into evidence the <BR>Prohibition? Not only was the Prohibition wrong for legislating morality, but <BR>once the Prohibition Amendment was repealed, alot of former alcohol <BR>distributors/sellers fizzled out with it (or entered the drug trade).<BR><BR>Tom Hansen<BR>Moscow,<BR>Idaho</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV></DIV></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com">The New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
--0-1377216599-1052952342=:59636--